Bi code? Or a more inclusive queer code?
Richard Powers
Seeing all the hubbub about the Twink code and MuffDiva code on
soc.motss, I started thinking about a bi code. Or (maybe even better)
some sort of queer code that would could accomodate all of us (even
supportive hets). Point being to have a code that is equally
applicable to females or males.
Just a few ideas to kick around if anybody thinks this would be a good
idea:
Maybe Q for queer with Kinsey scale number after it?
Some things can just be stolen from other codes. Such as the tallness
and weight attributes from Bear Code.
The 'e' (endowment) attribute can also be stolen from Bear Code and
applied to women (breast size) as well as men (erection size).
Well, I'm tired. What do you think? And what attributes do you think
should be included?
If I get any interest I'll compile the code and cut'n'paste the parts
we want to steal from other codes.
Rich.
--
"Tens of thousands of messages, hundreds of points of view. It was
not called the Net of a Million Lies for nothing."
-Vernor Vinge, _A Fire Upon The Deep_
___
--><-- (rpo...@sun.panix.com) \X/
Tim Pierce
>Seeing all the hubbub about the Twink code and MuffDiva code on
>soc.motss, I started thinking about a bi code. Or (maybe even better)
>some sort of queer code that would could accomodate all of us (even
>supportive hets). Point being to have a code that is equally
>applicable to females or males.
Ignoring for the moment the utter banality of this obsession with
"codes," to the best of my knowledge neither the Smurf nor Nibelungen
codes are gender-specific, or necessarily even queer-specific.
--
____ Tim Pierce / ?Usted es la de la tele, eh? !La madre
\ / twpi...@unix.amherst.edu / del asesino! !Ay, que graciosa!
\/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Pedro Almodovar
Piglet
or K for Kinsey? I like this idea.
>The 'e' (endowment) attribute can also be stolen from Bear Code and
>applied to women (breast size) as well as men (erection size).
oh, Ick. Size queen! I don't want to know a woman's breast size or
a man's penis size. I'd rather find those out for myself. What I am
interested in is the part of the muffdiva scale that ended with
"soft and rounded" "check those curves" and "body of the goddess".
Piglet, who wanders around the scale from month to month...
Tree of Schnopia
>In article <C5tKv...@panix.com> rpo...@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>>Seeing all the hubbub about the Twink code and MuffDiva code on
>>soc.motss, I started thinking about a bi code. Or (maybe even better)
>>some sort of queer code that would could accomodate all of us (even
>>supportive hets). Point being to have a code that is equally
>>applicable to females or males.
>Ignoring for the moment the utter banality of this obsession with
>"codes," to the best of my knowledge neither the Smurf nor Nibelungen
>codes are gender-specific, or necessarily even queer-specific.
I haven't been privy to the great code wars (by choice, mind you), but this
seems a rather innocent question with nary a sign of obsession, merely a
sort of idle amusement.
What's my point? I'd rather not see soc.bi become a place where casual
rudeness is expected and the Attitude is one's badge (I refer here to
soc.motss). Please, Tim, be nice to us...we're not here for flames.
Thanks.
Drewcifer
--
----bi Andrew D. Simchik SCHNOPIA!
\ ---- as0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu TreeWater
\\ /
\/ "Words Weren't Made For Cowards"--Happy Rhodes
Albert Lunde
Height, Weight, Length, Width
Age
Sex ... Nah!
Top/Bottom/Switch
Eye/Hair Color
Butch/Femme/KiKi
Favorite Flavor
Style: Lipstick/Granola/Leather/Clone...
Shoe Size
--
Albert Lunde | Interfaith | *Y*Y* "A branch on the
Albert...@nwu.edu | Bisexual | *Y* tree of life"
| Feminist |.......|.........................
Orc
>Well what might we want to know?
>
>Height, Weight, Length, Width
.
.
>Shoe Size
Travel habits
Interest in trainspotting
peter
>>Well what might we want to know?
>>
>>Height, Weight, Length, Width
> .
> .
> .
>>Shoe Size
>
>
> Travel habits
>
> Interest in trainspotting
>
and can we include a bookworm code?? <skip>*joy*
don't know what letters are available
+++ i don't have a codependancy problem with books
++ have given up all but very brief showers and driving a
car (when you can read on a bus/train)
+ occasionally
not if i can help it
- yes i read the tv guide the world's #1 selling publication
-- not since school (and not then either)
--- arn't they mythical pre-1950's tv type objects?
<grin> and then after this code Kay, Orc well put the travel
habits piece ;) ... hope my line width is better people
**HUGS** to you out there Kay who was so friendly when i
de-lurked/muffined, i feel some days like one of the really
lucky ones ~~ i know several people who have the potential to
hurt me bad, and at the moment i'm not exactly at my most trusting,
but what makes it all work out is the knowledge that i have other
people who know me very well & still accept+love me [ now if they
gave out hmmm]. All my smilies to Orbis also (*hugs* too, i like
the personality via anon). Next year i hope to embark on a program
to improve my travel habbits (unless i do post grad :( ]
someone was talking about purity scores before; in the only one
i've ever seen [read sweeet+innocent <flutter><flutter> you
had to be bi to get a score anywhere near 50%, as most of the
questions doubled up as in "have you ever .....(gratuious sex act)..
...with a man" than later " have you ever ...(same gratuious sex act)
...with a woman". Hmmm makes me think about those i know who claim
low purity scores .. <grin> .. but it did always strike me as
rather strange
luv peter
---
"the force that through the green
fuse drives the flower" peter
s6 b(anarchosmurf) g l-/+ y/++ z+ n+ o+ x a--/+ u [u++- ? :)] v+ j++
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jon Harley
>Albert...@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>Well what might we want to know?
>>
>>Height, Weight, Length, Width
>>Shoe Size
>
> Travel habits
>
> Interest in trainspotting
Income
Any tendency to dump SOs without warning or explanation
Any resemblance to a marsupial
/Jon
____________________ ________________________________________________ ____
/ -- Jonathan Harley / Youngish. Educated. Cultured. Generous. Alone.__\_ /
/ J.W.H...@ncl.ac.uk / Work phone: UK 091 222 8504 (Mon-Thurs pm) \ X/
/______________________/ NBCS: B2t+w-ksvrp___________IRC: Jimblewix_______\/
Richard Powers
>o...@pell.chi.il.us (Orc) writes:
>>Albert...@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>>Well what might we want to know?
>>>Height, Weight, Length, Width
>>>Shoe Size
>> Travel habits
>> Interest in trainspotting
>Income
>Any tendency to dump SOs without warning or explanation
>Any resemblance to a marsupial
Oh poo!
How 'bout I just post it when I'm (mostly) done some time after the
march (Yes I'm going! Last minute decision.) and then you can all
argue about how it doesn't have anything about marsupials or
trainspotting or missing internal organs or...
Rich -Yeay! I'm going to the March! (Boo! I have to get up < 4AM
to catch the bus!)
Joe Woodhouse
>I started thinking about a bi code. Or (maybe even better)
>some sort of queer code that would could accomodate all of us (even
>supportive hets). Point being to have a code that is equally
>applicable to females or males.
[sniff] Ah, my efforts of yesteryear, forgotten already... 8-P
I wrote a gender-neutral sexuality-neutral mono/Poly-neutral code
last year that was largely based on some features of the Bear Code.
I don't like polar models of sexuality (like the Kinsey scale). I
don't feel, for me, that liking one gender has to statistically be at
the expense of another. Hence, I used two independent scales - one
encoding level/amount of attraction to females, and one for males.
The code for this is very similar to the "beard" component of the
Bear Code - a capital letter followed by a number in the range 0
to 9. (And no, I'm not a C programmer, but starting at 0 lets someone
encode zero interest in a gender). That's "F" and "M", each followed
by a digit.
Thereafter, all the other attributes are encoded using the standard
"+", "-", "?", "*", etc symbols after each component.
I encoded Polyness/monogamy because that's an issue that's pretty
important to know about in many situations. "p" stands for Poly, with
"p+++" being "extremely Poly" (ie. monogamy is not an option), and
"p---" the reverse.
I thought that people might be reluctant to have a high "p" score,
lest hordes of people descend voraciously upon them. Thus there's also
an "availability" attribute. "p++ a--" would mean that the person is
Poly, but not really open to the idea of a new relationship right
now. "p* a*" would mean that it's a mutable issue, and depends on
context. And for all the, ah, not-tarts out there, you can set yourself
"a+++!" and see what happens. 8-P
I kept the Kink attribute. 8->
I then had some trouble with physical descriptions. Some people insisted
on having a hair length attribute. Body size, IMHO, wasn't handled too
well by the Bear Code - I used three distinct scales for frame (bone
size), build (muscle development over the frame) and weight (fat
distribution). There was a height attribute as well.
If you're still reading after all that, well, with a bit of thought
my own Bi code is :
F9 M5 p+++! a(*)++ k+(+) f- b(+) w+ h++
[shrug] I never really took it too far, but I did have some vigorous
debates in email about some aspects of it. (Mike, maths queen that he
is, had a lot of problems with the arbitrariness of what the F & M
numbers meant... never did get that one sorted out... [laugh]).
Joe.
/ Joe Woodhouse / I'm just a sweet bisexual... / Hello, there.
/ Latrobe University / (think - Rocky Horror) / Threesomes are fun.
/ Melbourne, Australia / Music. Magic. Mathematics. Me. / I like cats! (miaow!)
Jon Harley
> [sniff] Ah, my efforts of yesteryear, forgotten already... 8-P
> I wrote a gender-neutral sexuality-neutral mono/Poly-neutral code
>last year that was largely based on some features of the Bear Code.
Maybe it was _too_ neutral? :-)
> I don't like polar models of sexuality (like the Kinsey scale). I
>don't feel, for me, that liking one gender has to statistically be at
>the expense of another. Hence, I used two independent scales - one
>encoding level/amount of attraction to females, and one for males.
>The code for this is very similar to the "beard" component of the
>Bear Code - a capital letter followed by a number in the range 0
>to 9. (And no, I'm not a C programmer, but starting at 0 lets someone
>encode zero interest in a gender). That's "F" and "M", each followed
>by a digit.
I don't like this at all. Your classification of yourself as F9 M5 sounds
pretty much equivalent to Kinsey 1-2, and is, moreover, an immediate turn off
to men, who will think "oh, he likes women better" (or at least, that's my
first reaction). Why bother going to bed with men when your level of
attraction to them is so much lower?
Also, personally (and it has been said by other bis on soc.bi and elsewhere)
level of attraction varies according to context - if I'm in bed with a woman,
I would be F9 M<something lower>, and vice versa in the opposite situation.
At least the Kinsey scale is an attempt at a quantitative measure of your
sexual history.
> I encoded Polyness/monogamy because that's an issue that's pretty
>important to know about in many situations. "p" stands for Poly, with
>"p+++" being "extremely Poly" (ie. monogamy is not an option), and
>"p---" the reverse.
Sorry, maybe I don't quite understand polyness, but how can you have SEVEN
degrees of polyness? Surely you're either poly all the time, some of the time,
or never. And just how does this differ from the NBCS' "slut factor"?
>Joe.
Graydon
seperate codes for sexual, aesthetic, and romantic attraction?
(Presumably toward male people and female people, but maybe
that should include flavours, too - I certainly get the impression
that some folks have a particular weakness for butch, for instance.
Maybe it should be 'butch sub male, butch sub female, femme sub male,
femme sub female', etc? And keep gender out of the upper hierachy?)
Graydon
Richard Powers
Interesting. I'm not sure how you mean this. Could you give me an
example of how this would be denoted?
Flatline Duty
: my own Bi code is :
I *like* it!
Here goes...
F7 M4 p--- a--- k+ f- b+ w- h+
What would average encoding for, say, height? "h" alone? I put
"h+" as the default. (And, "b+" for build default.)
Hello DarrenDave.
Knight
--
"Show me, show me, show me how you do that trick? The one that makes
me scream s/he said. The one that makes me laugh, s/he said." The Cure
Richard Powers
>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
>> I encoded Polyness/monogamy because that's an issue that's pretty
>>important to know about in many situations. "p" stands for Poly, with
>>"p+++" being "extremely Poly" (ie. monogamy is not an option), and
>>"p---" the reverse.
>Sorry, maybe I don't quite understand polyness, but how can you have SEVEN
>degrees of polyness? Surely you're either poly all the time, some of the time,
>or never. And just how does this differ from the NBCS' "slut factor"?
I don't see the slut factor as having anything to do with it. You can
practice a totally polyamorous lifestyle and be anything but slutlike,
if your idea of relationships includes getting to know someone quite
well before before bedding them.
Equating being poly with being slutty seems anti-poly to me.
Graydon
>In <93117.0918...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> Graydon <SAUN...@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
>writes:
>>If I can throw in a few denarii - how about a code that has
>>seperate codes for sexual, aesthetic, and romantic attraction?
>
>example of how this would be denoted?
Oh, gods.
Sif's hair...
Ok, how about:
S36 A28b R19p++ (this is me)
Would read: sexual attraction to men, three, women, six; esthetic
attraction to men, two, women eight with a weakness for a particular body
type, romantic attraction to men, one, to women nine but higher
in cases of a particular personality type.
The other modifiers:
a - attitude k - kink
s - subculture and the ussual use of *, +, -, and !.
b - body type I'd sugguest = for degree of ambivalence about
p - personality an issue (someone indifferent to the plumbing
c - clothes of a lover might be S7==, for instance.)
I'd also like to sugguest ~ for 'varies
wildly under stress', but this is getting confusing
enough. I think a set of _other_ modifiers (in brackets) so
the default male/female attraction numbers can be subbed out
or expanded on (for instance, a completely lesbian woman might
want A0(6/9+) for femme/butch, but I don't see any way to
get a comprehensive list of all those possible other considerations
into the scheme.
Graydon
Jon Harley
>J.W.H...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>wood...@latcs2.lat.oz.au (Joe Woodhouse) writes:
>
>>> I encoded Polyness/monogamy because that's an issue that's pretty
>>>important to know about in many situations. "p" stands for Poly, with
>>>"p+++" being "extremely Poly" (ie. monogamy is not an option), and
>>>"p---" the reverse.
>
>>Sorry, maybe I don't quite understand polyness, but how can you have SEVEN
>>degrees of polyness? Surely you're either poly all the time, some of the time,
>>or never. And just how does this differ from the NBCS' "slut factor"?
>
>I don't see the slut factor as having anything to do with it. You can
>practice a totally polyamorous lifestyle and be anything but slutlike,
>if your idea of relationships includes getting to know someone quite
>well before before bedding them.
The NBCS "slut factor" (as you no doubt know, you must have read the NBCS
if you're planning to incorporate some of it in your new code) goes from
"s--: strictly monogamous" to "s++: strictly polygamous". Call me clueless,
but it sounds pretty relevant to me. That has 5 variations including
neutrality; I _still_ don't understand how polyness can need 7.
>Equating being poly with being slutty seems anti-poly to me.
Then you're being paranoid, I *SAID* "maybe I don't quite understand".
Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance is a good
guide, and I freely admit ignorance. I am not anti-poly and I think it
should be in any bi-code, as I suggested to you in e-mail only last week.
ObCodes: B2 t+ w- k sv r p : GCS d+ p- c++ m++ s+/- g+ w+ x++
Nik Gervae
[Originally posted on april 23]
The Kinsey scale thing is perfect! Maybe it should use K though? Also, we
should use the scale with all the others, instead of the ++ to --
thingamabob.... +/- could be used for just-over or just-under. There
should also be a code for "type" of queer...? Then there's the whole
dimension of "straight-acting" or "likes football" (I know several queers
who do, and not *just* for the tight ends :-), and so on....
Here's a shopping-list of suggestions...
Physical characteristics:
t tallness
w weight
c color (skin, hair, eyes) -- this would need a special encoding....
h hair length/style?
f furriness (what about facial hair?)
g gender (important for bisexuals? and what about transsexuals?)
e endowment (I don't see a need for the twink code's "ball size" or
"cream" codes...but then I'm not strongly sex/gonads oriented.)
m muscle (mass & definition, like in the twink code)
z fashion (as in Smurfcode)
p piercings (getting more popular every day; needs subcategories)
L,R left, right (where applicable)
e ear
n nipple
c crotch, somewhere
b brow
l lip
Personality/Social characteristics:
g gratification/groping (non-sexual, friendly)
x eXtrovertedness or friendliness (all on soc.bi would rate 6 :-)
k kinkiness
i innocence/ignorance (the Babe in the Woods factor)
r relationships (related to promiscuity/sluttiness, but not as focused
on sex). Possibilities include strictly monogamous, serially
monogamous, parallel monogamy (1 of each gender at any time),
occasional sex with friends, polygamous, all the way to downright
slut!
a athleticism--or attitude?
o outdoorsiness, Earth son/mother
d diet (6 is veggie, 0 is carnivore, etc)
v vices (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc)
j jokes/humor (as in Smurfcode)
b brains (or maybe bleach/blonde/airhead factor?)
n nerdiness (hey, we're all computer geeks, right?)
l leisureliness/laziness
u uptightness
p political bent/PC scale? (could fit under uptightness?)
$ wealth (to toss in one last hot-potato category)
In addition to the scale numbers, we could use the established !
for prototypical, : for obfuscatory, ? for not quite sure (what
IS the average endowment!?), * for seems-like-but-isn't, and / for
is-but-doesn't-seem-it.... To leave something out is to say "no
comment".
So what would that make me? [I've seen 0-6 and 1-7 versions of the
Kinsey scale; this is 0-6.]
Q6- t4 w4 c[w,br,bl] h1 f1,2 g[male] e3?[being modest] m4,3 z2 p1(Re)
g0 x3 k0 i5/ r5+ a1 o2 d5 v0 j4 b4+ n4 l5 u3
Q6- ... All past history is exclusively gay, but I turn & look at
beautiful women, and wouldn't rule 'em out....
c[w,br,bl] is "white", brown hair, blue eyes
f1,2 is 1 for fur, 2 for facial hair
m4,3 is for mass & definition, respectively
Whew! That's a bit long. But I do love this stuff, irrelevant as it is.
<Tee hee!>
The ball's back in your court; take what you like....
--
Nik Gervae ## S2/8bg+-l+y++-/:!z-n-++o-+/++:x-+:a++:u-+v+:j+-
Software Publications ## T6(not)C2L1-3w hd(+,++)a--w-c-yeg(huh?)t-k---s-!m2q-
NeXT Computer, Inc. ## B2(go-t & sburns)f-t+c-!g-(--)k--s---mr-p+
nge...@next.com ## [[[[NXDisclaimer alloc] init] disclaim] free];
Richard Powers
>rpo...@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>>J.W.H...@newcastle.ac.uk (Jon Harley) writes:
>>I don't see the slut factor as having anything to do with it. You can
>>practice a totally polyamorous lifestyle and be anything but slutlike,
>>if your idea of relationships includes getting to know someone quite
>>well before before bedding them.
>The NBCS "slut factor" (as you no doubt know, you must have read the NBCS
>if you're planning to incorporate some of it in your new code) goes from
>"s--: strictly monogamous" to "s++: strictly polygamous". Call me clueless,
>but it sounds pretty relevant to me. That has 5 variations including
>neutrality; I _still_ don't understand how polyness can need 7.
Ok, I misspoke there. Yes, that _is_ what the NBCS "SLUT factor" says.
What I should have said is that I don't understand why the NBCS
equates poly with "slut".
>>Equating being poly with being slutty seems anti-poly to me.
>Then you're being paranoid, I *SAID* "maybe I don't quite understand".
>Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance is a good
>guide, and I freely admit ignorance. I am not anti-poly and I think it
>should be in any bi-code, as I suggested to you in e-mail only last week.
Ahem. Cool down Jon. I really didn't mean it that way. I'm not
attributing _anything_ to malice. I _do_ think "polyamorous ==
slutty" is anti-poly. It's the NBCS which makes this comparison, but
I don't think it was malicious, just thoughtless.
I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I don't think you're anti-poly.
And I'm sorry if it sounded like that.
Am I forgiven? Friends? Can we go back the regularly scheduled
fluff? :-)
Well, *hugs* if you want 'em.
Jon Harley
>>>Equating being poly with being slutty seems anti-poly to me.
>>
>>Then you're being paranoid, I *SAID* "maybe I don't quite understand".
>>Don't attribute to malice what you can attribute to ignorance is a good
>>guide, and I freely admit ignorance. I am not anti-poly and I think it
>>should be in any bi-code, as I suggested to you in e-mail only last week.
>
>Ahem. Cool down Jon. I really didn't mean it that way. I'm not
>attributing _anything_ to malice. I _do_ think "polyamorous ==
>slutty" is anti-poly. It's the NBCS which makes this comparison, but
>I don't think it was malicious, just thoughtless.
>
>I'm sorry about the misunderstanding. I don't think you're anti-poly.
>And I'm sorry if it sounded like that.
Sorry, I though _I_ was being accused of an intolerance which I take very
seriously. I apologise if I misread you - my excuse is that between personal
rejections, job application rejections and my work, I'm very stressed at the
moment.
>Am I forgiven? Friends? Can we go back the regularly scheduled
>fluff? :-)
>
>Well, *hugs* if you want 'em.
I could use a little fluff... *hugs* *cuddles*
Richard Powers
>>Am I forgiven? Friends? Can we go back the regularly scheduled
>>fluff? :-)
>>
>>Well, *hugs* if you want 'em.
>I could use a little fluff... *hugs* *cuddles*
Mmmm. *hugs* *nibble* *cuddle*
Glad there's no hard feelings. Now if I would just get off my butt
and get to work on this code...
Lars Peter Fischer
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Powers (rpo...@panix.com)
Richard> What I should have said is that I don't understand why the NBCS
Richard> equates poly with "slut".
Indeed. That's an all to common attitude, and it's simply all wrong.
Being poly has to do with finding it natural and good to be in love
with several people at the same time and having a meaningful
relationship to all of them, and also finding it natural for partners
to behave the same way.
I guess that I'm poly basically because I don't feel (love related)
jealousy. I simply find my partner having other lovers besides me
being the most natural thing. Yeah, it can give a few problems with
scheduling and such, but otherwise I never had a problem with it.
Being poly does not mean "jumping into bed with all people you meet"
at all. Poly and Slut are very different things.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fis...@iesd.auc.dk | Nogen gange, så slås vi for noget
CS Dept., Aalborg Univ., DENMARK. | Andre gange, så tvivler vi på'et - Gnags